That is what I am calling my pond project. I am a long time lurker of this great forum, it has been extremely helpful. My story is as follows:

I live in Fairfield County, CT on property that has a 1.5 acre pond in the back. Originally it was a just river running through the property. Thye dug out the pond and put in a dam probably 60-70 years ago. The problem is that the previous owner did little to no upkeep on the pond so it has years and years of muck build up. The majority of the pond is now 1.5 - 2 ft deep max. Since it is connected to a state river there is really no feasible way to drain, re-direct and excavate. I looked into hydraulic dredging, because we have a perfect area on site to move the muck and let it drain in filter bags, but when the quote came back at $100k I drank a beer or two and started to think about other options. I wanted to know:

1. Has anyone used the system from www.muck-n-weeds.com?
2. Do digester pellets really work?

Thanks in advance.

Is there somewhere else on the property where you could build a new pond?

Hi Tipmorris

Welcome to the forum! You don't have room on your land to drain the pond? Not sure I understand why you can't drain with a pump then excavate silt with excavator and dozer, but I want to understand.

Any liquid manure contractors around you?

Mix her up and pump her out.

Wouldn't be much different than pumping manure.

Cheers Don.

Hi Tipmorris,

If I understand correctly, your pond was constructed by damming a river so you have a continuous influx of water which makes draining impossible. Over the years the pond has filled with silt and muck. You can't temporarily redirect the river to do the renovation as the river is a state waterway. That leaves you with renovating a pond that is full of water. Do I have it correct? What shape is the pond, i.e. long and narrow, etc?

Bill D.

teehjaeh57 - first, happy birthday. second, thank you for the reply - my assumption is that there is no way the local or state groups would let me aggresively deal with draining the pond becasue of the potential impact to the river

Bill D - this is precisely my scenario. In terms of shape the river leading into pond is fairly narrow, 10-15 ft across, then the pond itself opens up into a large open expanse with the river flowing along the right hand side throughout. The water level and clarity are both pretty good along the bank associated with the river. Unfortunately the side across from the active flow of the river has become a sort of catch-all for leaves, debris etc. for the last 40 years. My thought was to somehow get a base level of muck out of the pond and then utilize bio pellets and possibly aeration to keep the water flowing out of the "dead" part of the pond. The river itself upstream and downstream is home to trout and it would be my dream one day to have a stocked pond but we are a long way from that dream right now.

You can always ask. Perhaps you could present your idea in a way that will enhance the river ecosystem.

OTOH having lived in New England you're probably right. I loved living there but the regulations in Mass were a real mind bender.

Not a big believer in the biopellets or any other compound to remove muck.

Cecil - thank you, yeah I am skeptical as well, sounds so good in theory

I think I would get a large group of friends to stomp around in the pond every time it rained real hard.

highflyer - free beer to all stompers!

This is why it is my Sawshank - I may have to scoop it out by hand over the next 10 years.

Here is another possible option for you but please keep in mind I am not a pro. A dragline has a long reach and they are used in gravel pits filled with water all the time.....

Bill D - yeah the scoop from the www.muck-n-weeds.com site appears to work like a very small DIY version of a dragline.

I apologize in advance if bringing up a website is a no-no. I have no affiliation whatsoever. It looks like a long, slow process but the price could be right!

Manually removing muck and trucking away isn't an option? Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a great place to start getting quotes from contractors. Can you spread the organic material/silt around your property? It's your muck, after all, to with what you choose?

That would be my first thought also. New construction may be cheaper than renovating old and he could still have the old "as is" for a frog pond or forage pond.

Yep, and you can put the spoil into the old pond if you want to fill it in.

There is no other spot on the property for a pond, the pond is essentially the entire backyard.

"Manually removing muck and trucking away isn't an option? Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a great place to start getting quotes from contractors. Can you spread the organic material/silt around your property? It's your muck, after all, to with what you choose?"

Removing the muck from the pond and spreading it around the property is certainly the best option. The first quote I got for hydraulic dredging was $100k and that is not in the cards. I do not think I would be allowed by local/state authorities to temporarily re-direct the flow of the river to allow for traditional mechanical dredging. I am not certain about the dragline concept but I think I would run into the same issues/pushback. My main focus is to try and find a cheaper way to get that muck out of the pond and onto my property to bring this pond back to life. If I have to use the Andy Dufresne Sawshank method and scoop it out one coffee cup at a time I will!

So if I understand correctly, your pond is essentially a wide spot in the river, formed by damming up the river years ago at a time when doing such things was far more commonplace and much less, shall we say, problematic? Not much red tape to contend with back then.

Upstream of the pond is public river, and downstream of the pond the river continues?

An aerial photo (screenshot) from Google maps would really help!

If that's the case it changes everything! I am still apparently not understanding the scenario here. If it is a dam on a river/creek, it will continue to silt in unless sediment dykes are built which can afford an excavator to sit on and remove sediment every 5 years or so. That's how NE lakes are built with feeder creeks now and it works very well compared to the previous construction model.

Sparkplug - this is 100% correct, exactly my scenario

teehjaeh57 - the thought is that with 1) aggressive intial removal of existing muck 2) focus on annual upkeep (leaf removal, etc) and 3) implementation of aeration in the "dead zone" of the pond we can stay ahead of the silt build-up for the foreseeable future. The current issue as I see it is the cost of 1).

OK, now I understand! You can't prevent flow of water into the pond apparently, so you can't dry it out and allow equipment to excavate - UNLESS you create a series of dykes upon which an excavator with a 60' arm sits and removes all surrounding silt it can reach. I've seen something similar to this done a few times, certainly would be far cheaper than your original estimate for hydraulic dredging. Around here in NE, I'm guessing the cost of removing that amount of silt on 1.5 ac site would cost 15k. At my farm, we increased depth of a 1/3 ac pond by 5' and the entire process only took 2 hours - cost me a few cases of beer. Just saying, with a big bucket this job might not be as daunting as it appears if my experience lends any direction on your project. Of course, your sediment will be in liquid form and not as easy as my excavation project. Still, it can be done.

I would take care to ensure NOTHING leaves that pond and travels downstream except water. Seems to me that guy in Wyoming we were discussing earlier tried the same thing, (damming and digging out a creek), and the silt that flowed downstream due to his efforts was a huge issue for the EPA.

I know it's not the popular view, but in this case I have to wonder who's perspective trumps who: is it YOUR pond with a small river flowing in and out, or is it the STATE's river with a manmade wide spot?

Not trying to be negative, but my bet is the state's river.

sprkplug - Thanks for the reply. I don't think it is a matter of trumping one perspective or another. I 100% have the right to use hydraulic dredging to solve my problem, that has been determined, its just that it its prohibitively expensive. I am just trying to do research to determine if there are any other most cost effective options.